|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
wrung from his hands the blood flowing from the wound, and then be sprinkled the sword and shield. This is the treatment they show prisoners.
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little is known about the Aztecs' battle formations, but general considerations favor relatively open ranks in which the combatants are widely dispersed. This open formation is typically employed when fighting infantry of a similar nature to one's own, whereas a more densely packed closed formation is employed when withstanding a cavalry charge. Since there were no horses, the way Aztec weapons were used fostered an open formation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In combat the left foot and shield are kept forward. In striking, the right foot advances to throw the body weight forward and permit the arm to achieve maximum extension while delivering the blow. Thereafter the soldier steps back, and the shielded left side is again forward to defend against a retaliatory blow. Thus, the lateral distance between friendly forces was the length of the extended arm and weaponabout two meters (6 feet) in the case of the macuahuitl. Thrusting spears were probably used for jabbing and some restricted lateral movement rather than being swung from side to side, since the holder is disadvantaged if an opponent makes it past the blade. The logical (and frequently depicted) placement of thrusting spears was between the macuahuitl warriors. With the spear's superior length the fighters would not be severely disadvantaged by distance from their opponents but could reach between the foremost combatants and strike at the opponent while simultaneously preventing them from slipping between the widely spaced swordsmen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to spacing, Aztec tactics must also have suffered from the technological limitations of their weapons, much as the tangless Bronze Age Greek swords were used primarily for piercing and not for slashing or parrying. Dislodging of the flint or obsidian blades of the Aztec weapons was apparently not a problem,50 but they were fragile. Consequently, warriors probably made some effort to avoid direct blows to the blades; they may have used the flat of the weapon to parry and have struck with the bladed edges. But they were more likely to have deflected blows with the shield because parrying damaged their weapon and meant losing the initiative and the opportunity to strike back. Thus, macuahuitl duels are unlikely to have resembled European saber duels in which combatants struck and parried with the same weapon. |
|
|
|
|
|